Students reneging on ED acceptances more than in past?

tamenund
Wed, 19 Jan 2022 16:42:30 +0000

It is Harvard’s Byzantine SCEA rules the student was violating and I for one agree those are shameful especially for a school with no worries about yield.

Harvard’s REA guidelines are hardly “Byzantine.” They’re simple and clear:

1. Applicants cannot simultaneously apply to any binding early decision program.

2. In addition, applicants cannot simultaneously apply to any non-binding early action program of a private US institution.

That’s it.

Is it reasonable to assume that any applicant who considers themselves a plausible candidate for Harvard (or any college, really) be able to understand those two simple provisions? I sure hope so for the sake of that applicant’s future success in college and in life. Reading and understanding a paragraph of material should be within such an applicant’s powers.

Moreover, Harvard (like several of its peers in selectivity) allows those admitted REA complete freedom to then later apply ED2 or RD anywhere they wish, and no Harvard REA admit is required to commit until the common deadline of May 1. Harvard then goes one step further and does not ask for a deposit from any who choose to enroll. Seems like a rather reasonable set-up to me.

As an experiment, Harvard suspended its REA program from 2007 to 2011. It then reinstated its REA program, as explained by its president at the time, Drew Faust:

“We piloted the elimination of early action out of concern that college admissions had become too complex and pressured for all students, and out of particular concern for students at under-resourced high schools who might not be able to access the early admissions process. Over the past several years, however, interest in early admissions has increased, as students and families from across the economic spectrum seek certainty about college choices and financing. Our goal now is to reinstitute an early-action program consistent with our bedrock commitment to access, affordability, and excellence.”

Princeton had an unintended one year experiment with a suspension of its SCEA program last year, but nothing about that experience dissuaded them from reinstating it this year.

For a variety of reasons, there is a high demand now for early action and early decision programs that is driven by families, including a large subset who equate admission to selective institutions with a presumption of superior outcomes or acquisition of greater social capital.

If one is cynical, I suppose, one might blame selective institutions for cultivating this demand to obtain a competitive advantage. Parents and applicants who are sore about this situation have two easy ways out: (1) just apply for regular decision everywhere, skipping the early process entirely, or (2) direct demand away from such institutions to the many fine colleges and universities where selectivity is not a principle factor in admission (that is, the great majority of American institutions.)